Captain James Yee is asking the Pentagon to apologize for treating him so badly. And maybe they should. After all, I noted in December 2003 that the prosecution in his case was asking for more time to determine whether or not the documents he was carrying out of Guantanamo were really classified at all -- after he had been arrested for carrying classified documents. If this was just bungling, the Pentagon should indeed own up to it; they've shown every readiness to acknowledge other missteps.
But when the charges against Yee were dismissed, as noted here in March 2004, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, said that the government was dropping the charges because there were "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence." Hardly a ringing exoneration of Yee.
I realize that those same national security concerns may prevent any disclosure of any more information about Yee, but here again, as with the case of Tariq Ramadan, the government's silence about why it has acted the way it has only gives a propaganda opportunity to those who oppose resistance to the global jihad in a larger sense.
From IslamOnline, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
WASHINGTON, October 13, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Captain James Yee is asking the Pentagon to apologize for putting him through what he called a "gross miscarriage of justice", after he was accused of spying and was thrown in solitary confinement for 76 days, only to be cleared of all charges.Yee, 37, who was sent to Guantanamo on November 5, 2002 to serve as chaplain to Muslim detainees and soldiers, left handcuffed in September 2003, only ten months after arriving, and was held in maximum security until October 24, where he wore hand and leg irons when he left his cell.
"My experience had taught me how little cultural understanding of Islam most military leaders had," Yee, who changed his name to Youssef after reverting to Islam in 1990, wrote in a recently released 240-page book, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"I am a soldier, a citizen, and a patriot. But in the eyes of a suspicious, misguided minority who have lost touch with America's national inclusiveness, above all else I am a Muslim.
"There are times when I fear that my ordeal simply stemmed from the fact that I am one of 'them' - a Muslim," he wrote.
His knowledge of Arabic, his praying and his denunciation of mistreatment of the Noble Qur'an by some soldiers fed the suspicions against him and other Muslim soldiers, according to AFP.
Apologize? In a pig's eye.
"... but above all, a muslim". Well, case closed. Mr. Yee, you forfeit your US citizenship and passport ... pack a bag and embark for points Middle East.
Do not come back. Ever. America owes muslims/islam Nothing.
"...I fear that my ordeal simply stemmed from the fact that I am one of 'them' - a Muslim..."
He is one of 'them'- therefore he is no longer one of us.
We should use Koranic strategy of warfare in order to beat them at their own game:
He is a traitor who is aiding and abetting the enemy. The sooner this is understood and we give these quislings what they so richly deserve, the less of our people have to die in the war against Islam-terror.
Cry me a river!
Shouldn't "reverting to Islam" read "perverting to Islam..."
Just wondering....
Yes, someone should help him pack so he can fly to one of the s-hole Muslim countries where he can be with his kind and be less of a threat to us.
Hasta la vista baby.
Amend that to read, "above all else, I am a spy."
When will we hear an arrested then released Muslim say,
"Sure, I was inconvenienced, but I understand the concerns of law enforcement and as a citizen who shares the same concerns of my fellow citizens, I'm glad I was put through this process devised for our general safety. However disconcerted and annoyed I am at these types of security measures, I am more saddened by the fact that so many of my fellow Muslims have made these law enforcement measures necessary."
Why must they all, like Chaplain Yee, begrudge all efforts at constructively criticizing Islam and begrudge all measures implemented (with respect to Muslim terrorists) to ensure the public safety?
If the evidence implicating Yee is sensitive, he could still be tried by military tribunal. Thus we OUGHT to be able to conclude that, since Yee was not prosecuted, there was no solid evidence for the charges against him. Unfortunately, given the military's P.C. reluctance to invoke military justice, we can conclude no such thing. Any trial of Yee involving secret evidence would be attacked mercilessly by groups like the ACLU, who regard our Islamo-fascist enemy as just one more defendant requiring the most partisan representation possible. The media would also jump on-board this chance to attack the president they hate, all of which makes the decision to prosecute or not a political question rather than evidence based. I just wish the administration would demonstrate more orbs-of-manhood and trust that the American people want this war prosecuted by every appropriate means, the idiot left be damned.
My experience had taught me how little cultural understanding of Islam most military leaders had
"I am a soldier, a citizen, and a patriot. But in the eyes of a suspicious, misguided minority who have lost touch with America's national inclusiveness, above all else I am a Muslim.
This boy is fooling himself if he thinks it's a "suspicious, misguided minority" that has a low opinion of him and of Islam.
"This boy is fooling himself if he thinks it's a "suspicious, misguided minority" that has a low opinion of him and of Islam."
With all due respect, I think you're fooling yourself. I think those of us who've woken up are still a minority -- a larger minority than we were two years ago, and growing progressively, but still a minority.
Our numbers are growing ever so slowly but yes, the Islamocognitive is still a minority.
A patriot and "[above all else] . . . a Muslim?" Impossible. As this Yee has shown, his primary loyalty is to Islam. How the US military can trust any Muslim is beyond comprehension.
I tend to think that Yee does view himself as " above all else..a muslim", since that is a central identity idea to any true-believing-muslim.
However, a rereading of the above quote from islamonline shows that this particular quote attributed to Yee does not exactly say that. In the quote from islamonline, he is apparently asserting that others view him that way, rather than that he views himself that way.
And please don't misconstrue this as support, in any way, for Yee, or islamonline.
Thankfully, an organization as great as the United States Military is far above the level of the various online ArmChair Warriors(TM) and accept any individual that wants to serve their nation willingly regardless of ethnicity or religious creed.
Such a thing isn't ever going to change, considering level headed folks rather than those that sit in front in a chair shaking their fist at their computer screen with much volitility know that a good soldier is a good soldier, regardless.
Of course the reality behind it that there are quite a few soldiers who just happen to be *gasp* Muslim such as myself who have served their country proudly. I'm quite delighted that such a thing is much to your collective chagrin, as the me, the so called "enemy" has done much of what many of you would never.
Issac, you have no problem obeying the orders of a non-Muslim commander ordering you, as part of wartime battle, to kill Muslims?
Compare to the shit Yee with this bloke:
Arlington, Virginia, USA – Uday Singh was the first Sikh to die in battle as a U.S. soldier; and now his headstone displays the first Khanda to appear as an official emblem of belief for government headstones and markers.
More than 260,000 people are buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Veterans from all the nation's wars are buried in the cemetery, from the American Revolution in 1776 to the present day Operation Iraqi Freedom. Important public figures, such as President John F. Kennedy, are also buried there.
http://www.sikhnn.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=143&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Issac,
What do you think of sgt. Hasan Akbar? To refresh your memory, he was the 101st airborne soldier who killed several 101st Airborne officers by throwing a grenade into their tent in Kuwait, in March 2003.
Were Akbar's actions righteous, according to his (and your) religion? If not, why not?
Dr. Pepper,
No, I would not if they were actively involved in the process of trying to kill me. I would have no qualms with dispatching these jihadist nuts in Iraq right now that blow up women and children who have done nothing to them in the slightest. It doesn't matter to me if you think they're "following their religion" by detonating explosives at Muslim funerals. In a very personal sense, I find them and their actions despicable.
Del,
I wouldn't even begin to look at Ackbar's actions in a religious sense. As a former military person, I would look upon him as a traitorous scumbag who murdered two of his fellow soldiers. I've lived in this country since I was 12 years old, and although I keep attended the Masjid because of the peace of mind it gives me I do not believe in violent jihad. Whatever Ackbar's personal justification for this action is is completely foreign to me.
When you join the military you join a brotherhood. He betrayed his brothers by murdering them. Regardless of who you are you deserve to fry for it in my humble opinion.
Issac,
In response to my question, "you have no problem obeying the orders of a non-Muslim commander ordering you, as part of wartime battle, to kill Muslims?", you answered --
"No, I would not if they were actively involved in the process of trying to kill me."
As a soldier in the Army, you don't get to decide your justification for killing the enemy. You follow the orders of your commander. What if you personally decide the Muslim enemy are not "actively involved in the process of trying to kill you", but your commander and his commanders up the chain of command have decided that they must be killed? Then what?
"I would have no qualms with dispatching these jihadist nuts in Iraq right now that blow up women and children who have done nothing to them in the slightest."
This response of yours also seems to harbor a loophole. It's heartening that you have the good sense to see the inimical evil of these particular "jihadist nuts" in Iraq. However, your response again raises the question, what if you were ordered into a battle against Muslims where the propaganda spin could take more advantage of the ambiguity of facts on the ground -- i.e., what if it was more difficult to show there were any "jihadist nuts" (it's so screamingly easy to show this in Iraq, though even still, we have countless Muslims and Leftists denying it) -- what if you were ordered into battle against Muslims who were behaving more like normal enemies (rather than like deranged, berserk, psychopathic, twisted, hideous Satanic beasts out of a motherfucking Gothic horror movie, praising God while holding up blood-dripping heads of innocents they just sawed off or booby-trapping the corpses of children they murdered in order to murder the child's parents, etc. ad NAUSEAM, as they are in Iraq now)?
Issac,
Thank you for your courteous reply. And thank you for your service to the USA.
However, it seems to me that your phrase, "I wouldn't even begin to look at Ackbar's actions in a religious sense" is a cop-out on your part.
Akbar himself, and many others, including fatwa-issuing-"luminaries" such as al-Qardawi, and the sheikh of Al-Azhar, do look at such actions as religious, and moreover, as righteous.
What do the imams or prayer leaders at your mosque or masjid say about volunteering to serve in the US military?
As a soldier in the Army, you don't get to decide your justification for killing the enemy. You follow the orders of your commander. What if you personally decide the Muslim enemy are not "actively involved in the process of trying to kill you", but your commander and his commanders up the chain of command have decided that they must be killed? Then what?
Perhaps I should clarify. When I said "actively involved in the process of killing me" I meant any enemy who would shoot/attempt to kill me when given the chance, whether they are doing it in the present or will do it in the future.
No, you don't get to decide you justification for attacking and destroying the enemy. However, unless things have changed dramatically since I was in the Army, your commanders will not order you to destroy targets that aren't the enemy you're actively fighting at the moment.
If we apply this to Iraq, for example, I wouldn't have any problem with doing a pre-emptive surprise on attack to demolish the enemy is if helps our cause. Why? Because this enemy are most likely the "jihadist nuts" I mentioned above. I doubt my higher ups that decide anyone that needs to be killed are thinking of anyone else other than those that would do violence against US soldiers or the civilian population.
This response of yours also seems to harbor a loophole. It's heartening that you have the good sense to see the inimical evil of these particular "jihadist nuts" in Iraq. However, your response again raises the question, what if you were ordered into a battle against Muslims where the propaganda spin could take more advantage of the ambiguity of facts on the ground -- i.e., what if it was more difficult to show there were any "jihadist nuts" (it's so screamingly easy to show this in Iraq, though even still, we have countless Muslims and Leftists denying it) -- what if you were ordered into battle against Muslims who were behaving more like normal enemies (rather than like deranged, berserk, psychopathic, twisted, hideous Satanic beasts out of a motherfucking Gothic horror movie, praising God while holding up blood-dripping heads of innocents they just sawed off or booby-trapping the corpses of children they murdered in order to murder the child's parents, etc. ad NAUSEAM, as they are in Iraq now)?
Well, if it is against enemies that are uniformed and behave like professional soldiers then it is solely on non-personal basis, the fact that they might happen to be Muslim is secondary.
When I took my oath as a citizen here in this country it was required that you disown any prior allegiances you may have had. And that's what I did.
I adpot the view that I'm sure most others here do: Country first, religion second. If we have to fight a war with an enemy who fields professional soldiers that may proscribe to Islam then I will do the job as a soldier and fight them to achieve whatever objective we are trying to achieve.
As a soldier, you're supposed to focus on your work personally, but rather focus solely on the objective. If I was in Iraq right now I would have trouble doing that because I simply despise these "insurgents" there now. If it they were professional soldiers, it would be mu objective, and self-preservation. If he's gonna shoot at me, I'm damn well gonna shoot at him, religion be damned.
However, it seems to me that your phrase, "I wouldn't even begin to look at Ackbar's actions in a religious sense" is a cop-out on your part.
I can understand your point of view, but I don't really think so. Like I said above, I view these matters in a sense of country first, religion second. I realize that Ackbar and those foolish enough to support his point of view this matter in a religious sense, but I don't. As a soldier myself, he is simply a traitor who murdered his own.
Of course, if I was to look at it in a religious sense I would be pissed off by the fact that he is a convert to Islam, and thus decided to collectively take a shit on all of our names. No. his actions weren't righteous in the slightest. When I was young my father taught me "Murder was wrong". I don't need any religious text to tell me otherwise. Although religion can offer peace of mind and a way of life, I would never think it should mitigate the common morality that we share as human beings, regardless of what might be written in Al Qur'an.
My problem with most other Muslims today is that they cannot effectively separate "Church and State" so to speak, and their religious lives from their lives as citizens. They also are too wishy-washy when it comes to renouncing violent Jihad and the need to address the issues with the Qur'an and Islamic belief.
What do the imams or prayer leaders at your mosque or masjid say about volunteering to serve in the US military?
I have never heard any opposition to it before. Perhaps it is because the Imam of my Masjid was born here, and was once in the military himself. I'm not sure, but it is a good thing when I see other Muslims offering their services as translators and advisors to soldiers currently in the Arab world.
Beware.Remember folks, that Jihad is fast AND slow. Slow Jihad is the imperceptible Islamization until Muslims have enough clout to IMPOSE Islam on a population from within...
Issac,
"your commanders will not order you to destroy targets that aren't the enemy you're actively fighting at the moment."
This is true; but the soldier, in his capacity as soldier, ordinarily has no opinions on this one way or the other. Only in his capacity as a citizen and as a "civilian" might he have opinions on this. And only if his commanders are ordering egregiously immoral things should he switch over into "citizen mode" and begin to think about questioning his orders. Though it's a fine and fuzzy line to cross with no sure rules how to navigate there, there should be -- and there is in fact -- enormous latitude given to the commanders, based not only on trust but also on the non-democratic structure of the command chain of the military.
"I doubt my higher ups that decide anyone that needs to be killed are thinking of anyone else other than those that would do violence against US soldiers or the civilian population."
I'm glad you "doubt" this. But again: your doubt and personal feelings are, in your capacity as a soldier following orders within the broad purview of that "enormous latitude" accorded your commanders which I mentioned above, irrelevant to this issue.
"When I took my oath as a citizen here in this country it was required that you disown any prior allegiances you may have had. And that's what I did."
How do you disengage yourself as a Muslim from the undeniable sense of trans-national allegiance that seems part of the structure of Islam?
Dr. Pepper,
re: your sentence "(rather than like deranged, berserk, psychopathic, twisted, hideous Satanic beasts out..."
I wish I could write like that. :)
del
This is true; but the soldier, in his capacity as soldier, ordinarily has no opinions on this one way or the other. Only in his capacity as a citizen and as a "civilian" might he have opinions on this. And only if his commanders are ordering egregiously immoral things should he switch over into "citizen mode" and begin to think about questioning his orders. Though it's a fine and fuzzy line to cross with no sure rules how to navigate there, there should be -- and there is in fact -- enormous latitude given to the commanders, based not only on trust but also on the non-democratic structure of the command chain of the military.
Interestingly enough, that's not the idea the United States military wishes to promote, even during my days in Army. This has much to do with the changing face of American way of thought, and the need for the military to appear to the "left" as much more than organization full of borg-like autmatons that march into battle unquestionably.
In my four years of service soliders were often encouraged to think for themselves, or in other words be an "Army of One" to bring a diverse amount of opinions and viewpoints to the board in hopes of enriching the strict team structure enforced in the military.
If a soldier took issue with the way things were being handled, he was encouraged to take it to his superiors who would then take it to his and so on and so forth if his objection had any merit. Of course, as you mentioned those in command are given much latitude in decision making. However, in the official code of conduct regulations of the military, it has long been added that soldiers are not required to follow orders that are morally and ethically reprehensible or otherwise put themselves or their team in unreasonable danger (ie. Charging blindly into an entrenched machinegun position when other measures could be taken). This of course has been only added since the Second World War.
Much of the military life is based on trust. I put my trust in my unit, and my commanding
officer, and they pust their trust in me. I trusted that my commanding officer would never put me in a position where I would be destroying anything other than combatants. I base this ascertation on my experiences in this tightly knit brotherhood. This as I mentioned before I have no problem with, Muslim or not. The soldier's oath is first above all else.
Of course I also recognize the need to become pre-emptive as well, such as soldiers searching out homes in Iraq for people sheltering terrorists. This I also have no problem with, considering those that protect and enable those that would harm civilians or military personnel are just as guilty, in my opinion.
How do you disengage yourself as a Muslim from the undeniable sense of trans-national allegiance that seems part of the structure of Islam?
It is quite easy in all actuallity. To tell you a little story, I grew up in a small, isolated Bedouin village near the Israeli border in Jordan. It was an isloated area, and Bedouin folk are much different than the "mainstream" Arab Muslims you may see raising stink over who knows what in Saudi Arabia, for example. We have are own culture, customs and music that far predate Islam that we still practice today. It is quite unfortunate that Bedouin culture has been marganilized and is slowly diminishing in favor of a bizarre Arab "hive-mind" where everyone seemingly thinks alike.
In the village we looked after our own and kept to ourselves. There was the elder, our Shaikh who was the "keeper" of his people. There was religion, which was often a strange brand of Islamic mysticism that helped give peace to the mind. Finally, there was the overall Bedouin idea that everyone was equally important in the village, and every life in the clan was sacred.
It was a simple way of life for the inhabitants but it often became impossible to keep when a country truly isn't free. That and the fact it was a dangerous area to live when I was a kid. This is why my father, a hard working man all his life moved me to America with him as soon as he was legally able to (My mother passed away when I was young).
Here in America I received everything I wouldn't have ever of dreamed of there. A good education, great neighbors of all creeds and religious beliefs, a chance to serve in the greatest military organization in the world, and of course a great career with the New York City Police Department. This country gave me the chance to start a family and to grow as a human being. It's given me a good life.
For this the least I can do is put her first above all else for all she's given me. I distance myself from the Arab and even bigger Islamic Hive-minds as I simply don't believe the rubbish they try to push.
I keep my religion but don't allow others dictate how I should interpret it. To all those Muslims that may try to convince me that "Jihad against the non-believers is the most important thing a Muslim can undertake in his life" I'll say and ask them this:
Bullshit. I'm the master of my own mind and body. I'll say what's the most important thing for me in my personal and religious life, not you. I go to prayers at the Masjid because it makes me feel good and gives me personally serenity. You go because you hope to hear some firebrand cry out "death to Israel". I have far more important things do do, such as making sure my daughter grows up and gets a good education, rather than concern myself with this "Jihad" nonsense. What have you done to improve yourself as a human being, rather than buy into a bogus, volatile collective thought.
If other Muslims across the world would realize this perhaps the Islamic world wouldn't be a hub for producing sociopathic serial killers.
Issac,
Don't you see a disconnect between your spiritual and moral values which you've expressed so far, and Prophet Mohammed's actions and goals?
Isaac:
You are the needle in the haystack!
You are the odd one out: either you are a secular Muslim, or you are a Muslim only due to filial piety, you may keep some traditions, but after all that you have written above, let me tell you: You are no longer a Muslim!
Those who are considering themselves to be Muslims would cut your head off in no time if you talked to them like that...
Tell me please:
Are there more like you? For all I know, I cannot imagine...
WE ASK THAT ISLAM APOLOGIZE FOR THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT HUMAN LIVES IT HAS SNUFFED OUT over the past 14 centuries.
As for America, I refuse to 'apologize' for our government's defending its people from mujahideen terrorists (which is all the Pentagon was really doing). It would be a sad day if the Pentagon caved into such demands.
Deliver us from Islam. Amen.